User agent detail

MOT-MOTO E398@ITUNES
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
UAParser
v0.5.0.2
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
close MotorolaMOTOclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
No result found
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
MOT-MOTO closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
close closeclosecloseyescloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

close MotorolaMOTO E398@ITUNESmobile-browseryescloseclose0.21801 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
iTunes MotorolaMOTOsmartphoneyes0.002 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close MotorolaMOTOcloseclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

closeclosecloseMobileclosecloseclose0.15501 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

iTunes close closecloseclosecloseclose0.061 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

No result found
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
MotorolaMOTO E398@ITUNESmobile:featureyescloseclose0.001 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
No result found
Zsxsoft
1.3
iTunes close MotorolaMOTOcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail

About this comparison

The primary goal of this project is simple
I wanted to know which user agent parser is the most accurate in each part - device detection, bot detection and so on...

The secondary goal is to provide a source for all user agent parsers to improve their detection based on this results.

You can also improve this further, by suggesting ideas at ThaDafinser/UserAgentParserComparison

The comparison is based on the abstraction by ThaDafinser/UserAgentParser
Comparison created 2016-05-10 07:58:01 | by ThaDafinser